ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2011
Physicians' recommendations to their patients concerning a novel pandemic vaccine: a cross-sectional survey of the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic in Japan.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Primary Care Physician Vaccination Behaviour: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Healthcare Providers' Vaccine Perceptions, Hesitancy, and Recommendation to Patients: A Systematic Review.Vaccines · 2021Review
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers, Honduras.PloS one · 2021Article
- Selection of key recommendations for quality indicators describing good quality outbreak response.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Pandemic influenza (A/H1N1) vaccine uptake among French private general practitioners: a cross sectional study in 2010.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesStriking a balance between the rapid availability of a novel vaccine while ensuring its safety, quality, and efficacy is a major challenge during a pandemic. We aimed to elucidate physicians' attitudes regarding the novel vaccine during the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic of 2009, and to determine factors that affected their vaccination recommendations to patients.
methodsOf a random sample of 1,000 general practitioners (GPs) in Japan, 515 participated in the cross-sectional anonymous survey conducted just before the novel vaccine was available (between 28 September and 18 October 2009).
resultsA total of 453 GPs (88.3%) replied that they intended to receive the new vaccine themselves; however, only 177 GPs (34.6%) intended to proactively recommend it to their patients. The anticipated cost of the vaccine negatively influenced the intention to vaccinate themselves and their recommendations to patients (P < 0.001, χ (2) test). Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that physicians with experience in influenza A/H1N1 patient contacts [1-20 contacts, odds ratio (OR) = 7.49 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73-32.36), P = 0.007; >20 contacts, OR = 8.03 (95% CI: 1.77-36.50), P = 0.007, compared with no contacts] were more likely to recommend the vaccine to patients, whereas those with knowledge of the fear on the causal association between Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases and the 1976 swine flu vaccination in the USA were less likely to recommend the vaccine [OR = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.45-0.97), P = 0.036].
conclusionsResults of our survey indicate that physicians experience a moral conflict regarding recommending the novel vaccine to patients, which may be the result of their own experience with the disease, knowledge of vaccine side-effects, and cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.